car taxes

MarkyMarkD

But it's worse than that.

We currently have a newish small car (<150g CO2 and cheap RFL) and a 9 year old larger car (>1549cc and hence full whack RFL).

The larger car would actually cost less to tax if it was 2 years newer and taxed on CO2 emissions, but because of the numpty rules we pay more.

All the press hype about this issues makes out that those with cars older than 2001 are "exempt" or "getting away with it" - but many of those car owners are actually being penalised for having an older car.

The whole process has been a shambles. The cc limit for the lower tax band actually increased over time, so that more and more cars came under the limit, but stopped at 1549cc so that the huge proportion of 1600cc cars stayed above the limit despite them being relatively low-emission.

It's all been driven by politics and not environmental rational judgement.

taurusgb

goldspanners wrote: »

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/road-tax/?deriv=6957

Very useful site - thanks for that .... does anyone know of a comparable site for motorcycles please?

Thanks

Lakeuk

All a farse, 5 yr ago I was looking for a new car and was eyeing up 3yr old meganes as they looked good value for money (with the high depreciation), I had a choice of a 1.4 or a 1.6, I went for the 1.6 as the mpg was a lot better, even better than the a smaller 1.4 clio. But as it's 1.6 I have to pay a higher tax than a 1.4.

It's not right for the goverment to include cars back to 2001, and just say if its a problem then sell your car - but everyone will be trying to sell these cars so prices are going to go through the floor

Steve_xx

It's all a big farce and looks likely that this hapless government will need to do a u-turn on this Vehicle Excise Duty debacle in the light of escalating fuel costs and the resultant affect on the prices of almost everything we buy.

They must think that the general population in the UK is stupid. They twitter incessantly about the environment and the need to raise duties in order to reduce pullution. What rubbish? They've found what they think is an acceptable revenue generator and they are determined to milk it to the full. A government should lead by example, and that means that if they see fit to pass bills that squeeze the motorist in the so-called interest of the environment then they should immediately switch their own vehicles to smaller. low emission models. But have they done this? No way will the likes of Brown and co be seen swanning about in Smart cars, but they ought to.

So the price of fuel is escalating relentlessly and whether joe ordinary likes it or not he will probably be forced to reduce his car use. Of course the result of this will mean that petrol duty revenue will fall. That'll suit the government, won't it? I wonder how and where they will decide to levy taxes in order to recoup this shortfall? They'll probably install yet more speed cameras, they're easy money aren't they?

You have to wonder what exactly they do with all this tax money they generate, apart from paying Tony Blair's mortgage and running John Precotts two jaguars. Oh and of course there's keeping the Royal Family in the style and multiple mansions that they should have long ago become unaccustomed to.

BillScarab

It's about time they abolished RFL completely, just tax the fuel and then the one swho use the most pay the most and it doesn't matter if it's an efficient card doing 50,000 miles per year of an inefficient one doing 5,000.

sjaypink

im really confused about all this? so old cars are not effected at present? and the new cars pay on co2 emmisions, not engine size?

i read earlier that the effected cars (of the new £455 py rate) included people carriers..... i dont understand how a large family is going to have to pay the same rate as a single bloke in a hummer? or does it not work like that?

MarkyMarkD

When the highest bands were introduced, they were not supposed to be retrospective.

Then the Badger decided he could make some more bob by stitching up those who had 2001-2006 cars with higher emissions, so changed the rules to be retrospective to 2001 from next April.

Cars pre 2001 are still done on an engine size basis, which is cheaper than most of the new bands (for cars under 1550cc) but more expensive than many of the new bands (for cars over 1550cc).

By the way, Lakeuk's comments do not stack up. If the 1.6 Megane had better MPG than the 1.4 Megane, it would have lower emissions and hence incur a lower level of RFL. Clearly the 1.6 Megane's MPG is actually worse (at least in the EU mandated tests) than the 1.4's, hence the higher level of RFL.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

the Badger

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

lauren_1

In some ways im better off by keeping my gas guzzler, after selling my 1.8 petrol picasso (they dont seem to be selling too good anywhere at the moment) and buying a more eco car to fit our needs (or just going pre 2001) i would have lost more than the tax for my car for a year and probably next year.